B\f50q\ 



,Vb 1 1 



Liquor Question m Hawaii — 
The Problem to be Solved 



WHY PROHIBITION IS THE BEST 
METHOD OF REDUCING THE 
CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR TO 
A MINIMUM « « 



By LORRIN A. THURSTON 



[At the request of the executive committee of the Hawaiian 
Prohibition League, Mr. Thurston has prepared a series of 
articles setting forth the arguments for and against "Prohibition" 
on the one hand, and " Regulation and High License" on the 
other. These were printed in the Pacific Commercial Adver- 
tiser in installments; collectively they are here presented.] 



HONOLULU. T. H. 
1910 



J 



Liquor Question in Hawaii. 

How intoxicating liquor is to be dealt with in Hawaii, is now the most vital 
question before this community. 

Nearly every person in the Territory is doing more or less thinking upon 
this subject. It is essential to clear thinking that the facts which everybody 
recognizes exist should be segregated and scheduled and the argumenta for and 
against the policy of liquor licensing, as against prohibition of licensing, clearly 
set forth, so that every man can see them, think them over at leisure and 
decide for himself. 

The following is a statement, as I understand them, of the admitted facts;' 
the arguments in favor of prohibition of the sale or manufacture of liquor in 
this Territory; the arguments against prohibition and replies thereto. In other 
words, they constitute the principal data bearing upon the problem now before 
us for solution. 

WHO ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 

There are certain men who admit nothing, agree to nothing, care for 
nothing but their own selfish ends; who know the law only to seek to evade it. 
These are the men who run blind pigs when they cannot get a license; and, 
when they secure a license, sell to drunken men and minors; sell out of hours, 
and deal in deadly doctored compounds regardless of the murderous conse- 
quences; who are in the business simply to make the most money out of it, 
caring for nothing else. 

These men are of the type of, and are to be classed with, professional 
criminals, and dealt with accordingly. They recognize no law but force; no 
motive but greed. They and their selfish interests are not to be considered 
in connection with this problem, except as it becomes necessary to hold them, 
along with the rest of the criminal class, in check, for the common good. The 
problem is to be settled by the rest of us. 

FACTS ABOUT LIQUOR WHICH GOOD CITIZENS AGREE UPON. 

Among disinterested men — those not financially interested in the liquor 
business, there are certain facts, commonly admitted and agreed upon, as 
follows : 

1. That intoxicating liquor is the cause of much if not most of the sin, 
crime, misery and poverty of society. 

2. That it is impossible entirely to prevent the consumption of liquor; 
but the welfare of society requires legislation with a view to reducing its use 
to the lowest practicable minimum. 

3. The present law, in its administration, is not satisfactorily accomplish- 
ing this result. 



THE PROBLEM FOR SOLUTION. 

On these admitted facts, the problem now presented to the people of 
Hawaii for solution is: "How can the use of liquor he best reduced to the 
lowest practicable minimum in order that sin, crime, misery and poverty may 
likewise be reduced?" 

At this point there is disagreement. 

Some say that the consumption of liquor will best be reduced by "regu- 
lating" its sale; in other words, by licensing it. 

Others say that the best way to reduce the amount of liquor consumed 
is to stop permitting its sale. 

For many years the "regulation" method of reducing liquor consumption 
has been in force in Hawaii. 

It is now proposed to try the "no license," or, in other words, the "pro- 
hibition of selling" method. It is up to the people of Hawaii to decide which 
method they think will best secure the desired result. 

REASONS WHY PROHIBITION OF THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR 
IS THE BEST METHOD OF REDUCING ITS CONSUMPTION TO THE 
LOWEST PRACTICABLE MINIMUM. 

Remember, always, that the problem is not "how to abolish drinking"; 
but "how to reduce liquor drinking to the lowest practicable minimum." 

1. THE REMOVAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO DRINK INTOXICATING 
LIQUORS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT MEANS OF REDUCING DRINKING 
TO A MINIMUM. 

If all the liquor in the world was blotted out of existence, and no more was 
made, that would remove all opportunity to drink, and completely and effec- 
tively abolish drinking. 

It is impossible to blot out liquor, so the next best thing 4nust be done 
to "reduce drinking to the lowest practicable minimum." 

If a man has to seek the opportunity to drink, he will be less likely to 
drink than he will if he is given the opportunity. 

In other words, make it difficult to get liquor, and a man is less liable 
to drink than if it is easy to get it. The greater the difficulty, the less the 
liability. 

' ' Out of sight, out of mind, ' ' applies as well to liquor as it does, as a rule, 
to other things. 

A BEEFSTEAK ILLUSTRATION. 

Suppose a meat diet is injurious to a man who is fond of beef, and the 
doctor recommends cutting it out and substituting a vegetarian bill of fare. 
What would be the best method of securing the latter diet? 

Would it be by broiling a delicious porterhouse steak to a luscious brown, 
putting it on a plate with a knife and fork and setting it on the table in front 
of that man when he was hungry, and allowing the appetizing flavors to waft 
over his longing palate; or by keeping the meat off the table and placing before 
him a liberal bill of fare of fruit and vegetables ? 



H. Kw. ftcJU. 



Is not the man more likely to eat that meat, cooked, savory and on the 
table, than he is if it is not there at all ? 

It may be said that if he eats the meat it indicates a weak character. 
This may or may not be so. That is "another story" to be considered later. 

STICK TO THE TEXT. 

The question NOW under consideration is ''how to reduce the drinking of 
intoxicating liquor to the least practicable minimum. ' ' Let us stick to the text. 

A COCKTAIL ILLUSTRATION, 

Apply the above illustration of the meat eater, to the liquor drinker. 

It is elemental that most men like liquor in some form; many crave it; 
a large number can not resist its lure. It is injurious to most men; deadly 
to a large percentage; nearly all would be better off without it. 

Under these circumstances, what is the best method of cutting liquor 
out of a man's diet? 

Is it by putting a cocktail under his nose, and letting its pungent and 
seductive flavor entice his appetite, especially with a lot of jolly companions 
present, administering punishment to other cocktails ? 

Is he not more likely to take a drink under such circumstances, than he is 
if no liquor is present? 

THE AVERAGE MAN. 

If the man in the illustration is more liable to drink a cocktail, under the 
circumstances named, than if no liquor is present, equally certain is it that the 
generality of men are more likely to drink liquor if there is a convenient saloon 
at hand, than if there is no saloon. 

The average man is more liable to drink if there is a saloon on the way 
home, than if he has to walk two blocks out of his way to reach one. 

He is more liable to take a drink if he can reach a saloon by walking two 
blocks, than if he has to walk a mile. 

He is more liable not to drink at all, if there is no saloon available. 

OPPORTUNITY THE CHIEF CAUSE OF DRINKING. 

In other words, opportunity is the chief cause of yielding to temptation. 
Remove the opportunity and the temptation disappears. Diminish the tempta- 
tion and the man drinks less frequently. Remove the temptation and the man 
does not drink. 

Set the steak on the table and the man eats it. Remove the steak and as 
a rule the man no longer thinks of it and does not eat it. 

Furnish cocktails and good company antf the cocktail goes down red lane. 
No cocktail in sight, no cocktail is consumed. 

Gridiron a man's pathway with saloons, with the odor of alcohol drifting 
across the sidewalk to his nostrils, and the friendly invitation to "come on, 



boys, and take a drink," with the sight of his' companions accepting the invi- 
tation, and the most natural thing in the world is to go in and take a drink 
with them. 

No saloon and the man, as a rule, will not think of liquor; hut will go home 
and kiss his wife without paralyzing her with a whisky breath. 

CORRECTNESS OF THIS REASONING DEMONSTRATED. 

The absolute correctness of the foregoing reasoning is demonstrated by the 
fact that everywhere, when whisky has become rampant and troublesome, and 
it is desired to bring it within bounds, the first thing done is to reduce the 
number of saloons. WHY ? 

There is only one reason; one answer: BECAUSE THE LESS SALOONS, 
THE LESS DRINKING. 

Why the less saloons, the less drinking ? 

There is only one reason; one answer: BECAUSE THE LESS SALOONS, 
THE LESS OPPORTUNITY. THE LESS OPPORTUNITY, THE LESS TEMP- 
TATION. THE LESS TEMPTATION, THE LESS YIELDING. THE LESS 
YIELDING, THE LESS LIQUOR DRUNK, AND THE ANSWER TO THE 
PROBLEM IS REACHED, viz: 

THE WAY TO "REDUCE LIQUOR DRINKING TO THE LEAST PRAC- 
TICABLE MINIMUM" IS TO REDUCE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GET- 
TING LIQUOR TO A MINIMUM— in other words, ABOLISH THE SALOONS. 

REASONING OF ANTIPROHIBITIONISTS LEADS TO SAME RESULT. 

The reasoning of the antiprohibitionists themselves leads directly to this 
same result. Not the reasoning of the blind pig keeper and his twin brother, 
that brand of saloonkeeper who does not care what happens to the buyer and 
whose sole motive is to make money for himself; but the reasoning of those 
who agree with the prohibitionists that it is desirable to ' ' reduce drinking to 
its lowest practicable minimum." 

THE ELEMENTS OF REGULATION AND HIGH LICENSE. 

These conscientious antiprohibitionists say: 

1. Restrict the sale of liquor by prohibiting its sale except to those who 
hold a license. 

2. Issue only a few licenses. 

3. Make the licenses high. 

This they call "limiting the sale of liquor by regulation and high license." 

THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF REGULATION AND HIGH LICENSE. 

What is the underlying principle involved in this interference with the 
"natural right" of everybody to sell liquor? 
Why will licensing improve the situation ? 
The reply is, that the underlying principle is simply, solely and only, that 



if everybody may sell liquor, there will be more "opportunity" to get it; and, 
there being more opportunity, more liquor will be drunk. 

Why does limiting the number of saloons to a few, help to decrease 
drinking? 

Simply, solely and cnly, because with many saloons there are many oppor- 
tunities to drink. With few saloons, there are few opportunities, and conse- 
quently less liquor is drunk. 

WHY HIGH LICENSE HELPS DECREASE DRINKING. 

Why does "high license" help to decrease drinking? 

There are two reasons, viz: 

First, because the higher the license, the fewer licenses will be issued; 
because more men can afford to take out licenses at $100, than if the licenses 
cost $1000 each. 

There is no mysterious virtue in "high license." There is no secret reason 
why it reduces the consumption of liquor. 

The patent, open and only reason is that, like prohibition, it reduces the 
number of places where liquor can be obtained. 

In other words, it lessens the opportunities for getting liquor. 

ANOTHER REASON. 

The second reason why high license lessens the consumption of liquor is, 
that it raises the price of drinks, so that a given sum of money buys less liquor. 

If a man has only a dollar to spend, he can buy five drinks at 20 cents 
each; whereas he can buy ten drinks if they cost only 10 cents each. Conse- 
quently he can get only five drinks at the high price, instead of ten at the low 
price, and high license has reduced that man's consumption by one-half. 

In other words, it has reduced his "opportunity" for drinking, by lessening 
the purchasing power of his money. 

NO DIFFERENCE IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN HIGH LICENSE AND 

PROHIBITION. 

There is, therefore, no difference in the principle involved between high 
license and prohibition. There is only a difference in degree. 

High license lessens drinking by lessening the opportunities to drink; but 
still leaves some saloons; in other words, some opportunities. 

The prohibitionist argues that, if lessening opportunities lessens drinking, 
and lessening drinking is the object sought, then why leave any opportunities 
which can be removed ? 

If abolishing SOME saloons lessens drinking, then why not abolish ALL 
the saloons and lessen drinking still more ? 



HIGH LICENSE FROM ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW. 

In other words, high license advocates admit the principle that reduction 
in opportunities to drink lessens drinking. They then proceed to prohibit all 
men from selling liquor except those who hold a license. Then they arbitrarily 
reduce the number of licenses to a few, so that many who would like to engage 
in the business are unable to do so. They then arbitrarily and intentionally 
put the price of a license so high that still fewer can afford to hold one, on the 
one hand; and, on the other hand, raise the price of liquor so high that the 
"poor man" can get less liquor for his money. 

INTERFERENCES WITH LIBERTY. 

In the face of all these arbitrary "interferences with liberty," they roll 
their eyes to heaven and condemn the prohibitionists for interfering with the 
"freedom" of mankind. They declaim, with patriotic virtue, that they woul:l 
"rather be free than sober." They scornfully refer to "Puritans" and thauk 
God that they are not as other men are, while all the time they are working 
along exactly the same lines that the prohibitionists are working, viz: Legis- 
lating in such manner as to deprive the great majority of citizens of their 
"natural right" to sell and drink liquor freely, with the object of "reducing 
the drinking of liquor to its lowest practicable minimum," by reducing the 
opportunities to get it. 

DIFFERENCE NOT IN PRINCIPLE BUT IN DEGREE. 

The difference between high license and prohibition is not in principle, but 
in degree. 

The high license advocate stops half way. He would only remove a part 
of the opportunities — a part of the saloons. 

The prohibitionist follows the principle to its logical conclusion, and advo- 
cates the removal of other opportunities— the remaining saloons. 

The high licenser ' ' sends a boy when a man is needed, ' ' and trumps with 
a two spot, the second hand around. 

The prohibitionist proposes to play the game by trumping with a high card. 

The prohibitionist proposes to guard the barn with a bulldog. The high 
licenser with a puppy. Both choose the same means. The difference is that 
the dog is more efficient than the pup. 

The one digs up the noxious plant by the roots and destroys the evil fruit. 

The other prunes some of the branches and leaves the remainder to produce 
their kind. 

The one secures results; the other plays at reform and accomplishes little. 

BLIND PIGS. 

But, says the antiprohibitionist, in reply to the foregoing, abolishing 
saloons does not abolish opportunity and temptation. The blind pigs take their 
place. 



9 

The reply to this objection is, that no one claims that abolishing the saloon 
will abolish drinking. That condition will obtain only when the millenium 
arrives. 

REMEMBER THE TEXT. 

Remember the text; the problem is not "how to abolish liquor drinking"; 
but "how to reduce drinking to the least practicable minimum." 

The conscientious antiprohibitionists admit that the less the number of 
saloons the less the drinking; that is, the less the opportunity to drink, the less 
the amount drunk; otherwise why do they advocate limiting the number of 
saloons ? 

By the same process of reasoning, a saloon openly located on the public 
street, selling under protection of the law and the police, gives more opportunity 
— is a greater temptation to drink, than is a secret blind pig in a back alley, 
under the ban of the law and in fear of the police. 

In other words, the fewer the saloons the less opportunity. But any lawful 
public saloon affords more opportunity to drink than does an outlawed place of 
sale, requiring concealment as a price of its existence. 

Consequently, the fact that blind pigs will exist under prohibition, even 
in the same numbers that they now exist under regulation, does not negative 
the reasoning that prohibition of the saloon will "reduce the drinking of liquor 
to its lowest practicable minimum." 

"REGULATION" OF SALOONS DOES NOT REMEDY THE EVIL 
SOUGHT TO BE OVERCOME, BECAUSE IT STILL PROVIDES THE OP- 
PORTUNITY TO DRINK ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR. It is, in the last analysis, 
the alcohol in liquor which kills. 

In 1888, William L. Green was minister of finance of the Kingdom of 
Hawaii. He had been for many years connected with the wholesale liquor 
business. Charges had been made that certain liquor dealers "doctored" their 
liquor, adulterating it with fusel-oil and other poisons, and the question was 
being discussed by the cabinet whether licenses should be refused to the of- 
fenders. After listening to the discussion for some time, Mr. Green said: 

THE CHIEF POISON IN LIQUOR IS ALCOHOL. 

"I have been in the liquor business myself for about forty years and I 
know what I am talking about. Take my word for it, gentlemen, the chief 
poison in liquor is alcohol, and the principal adulterant is water." 

THE KEYNOTE OF THE WHOLE LIQUOR QUESTION IS, THAT ALCO- 
HOL IS A POISON ! 

In the words of Mr. Green, "the chief poison in liquor is alcohol." What- 
ever other injurious ingredients are eliminated from liquor, so long as alcohol 
remains, the power for harm remains. 

In the words of Dr. Brinckerhoff, alcohol is a "habit-creating, character- 
destroying drug." 



10 

BISHOP RESTARICK AND ALCOHOL AS A FOOD. 

Bishop Restarick refers to an experiment by Professor Atwater, in which 
a man was shut up in a complicated apparatus and given small quantities of 
alcohol under careful observation. Chemical analysis of his breath and perspira- 
tion showed that a part of the alcohol was oxidized in the body, from which 
the conclusion followed that alcohol has food properties, and should be treated 
and legislated about as a food and not as a poison. 

ON A PAR WITH A RATTLESNAKE AS A DOMESTIC ANIMAL. 

This argument is as far-fetched as it would be to catalog a rattlesnake 
as a domestic animal, because its skin is sometimes used to make ladies' belts, 
and its liver is tried out to make ''snake oil," as a remedy for warts and 
rheumatism. 

Incidentally portions of a rattlesnake may be used for domestic and 
medicinal purposes; but primarily it is a poisonous reptile, and mankind and 
common sense recognize and classify it as such. 

MORPHINE, STRYCHNINE AND ARSENIC. 

Incidentally, morphine and cocaine are alleviators of pain. 

Incidentally, strychnine is used as a tonic to tone up the nerves. 

Incidentally, arsenic is used to bleach the complexion of certain ladies. 

Primarily, however, all of these substances are poisons; recognized, branded 
and legislated about, as such. 

Whisky is likewise, incidentally, a stimulant. 

For the purpose of the argument, we may admit that whisky contains 
food properties. 

Such facts do not, however, make whisky a subject to be primarily con- 
sidered and treated as food; any more than the fact that metal contains water, 
makes a cart load of scrap iron a proper source of water supply for the city 
waterworks. 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALCOHOL AND OTHER POISONS. 

The chief differences between alcohol and the other poisons above enu- 
merated, are: 

(1) That by custom, its consumption has become an accompaniment — an 
emblem of hospitality and good cheer, which disguises and keeps out of sight 
in the background, the after effect. 

(2) That it is slower in its ultimate action, than are most other deadly 
poisons. 

(3) That for the foregoing and other reasons, its character as a poison 
has not been recognized until recently. 

It is only within a hundred years or so, that any organized opposition to 
the use of alcohol as a beverage has come into existence. 



11 

TIPSY PARSONS AND PURITAN RUM JUGS. 

It is within the same period that nothing the worse was thought of a 
Church of England divine who became tipsy at a good dinner; and Puritan 
preachers reverently passed around the rum jug to the accompaniment of 
"Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow." 

PRIMARY ELEMENT OF SPARKLING CHAMPAGNE AND STINKING 

SWIPES. 

It has been a long, slow process to educate mankind to acknowledge that 
the primary element of sparkling champagne, the pure juice of the grape, 
manufactured in sunny France, is a poison and the same as the primary element 
of stinking swipes, made from refuse molasses and rotten potatoes, brewed in 
the slums of Kakaako. 

FACTS NOT EVEN YET ASSIMILATED BY HIGHMINDED MEN. 

Many highly educated, philanthropic and highminded men, as, for example, 
Bishop Restarick, have not even yet assimilated these facts; although they 
are matters of demonstration. 

For example — take the alcohol out of Kakaako swipes and the blind pig 
patron would spit it out in disgust. 

Take the alcohol out of champagne, and the swallow-tailed, low neck and 
short sleeved revelers would turn their glasses down when the five dollars 
a quart French beverage came around, and take five cent Honolulu soda water 
instead. 

ALCOHOL THE COMMON LURE. 

It is the alcohol that is the common lure. 

It is the poison of alcohol that drives the swipes guzzler to his squalid 
home to murder his wife. 

It is the same poison, disguised in fine clothes, that has dragged down to 
destruction man after man, and even women, from the best families and the 
highest places in every community. 

W. L. GREEN SPOKE GOD'S ETERNAL TRUTH. 

William L. Green was ahead of his time; but he announced God's eternal 
truth when he said: "The chief poison in liquor is alcohol." 

THE FATAL WEAKNESS IN REGULATION AND HIGH LICENSE. 

The failure to recognize that "ALCOHOL IS PRIMARILY A POISON," 
IS THE POINT OF FATAL WEAKNESS IN THE "REGULATION AND 
HIGH LICENSE" PROGRAM. 

The "regulation and high license" advocate admits practically every 
charge that the prohibitionist makes against liquor. He admits that it produces 



12 

sin, misery, suffering and poverty; that it is beneficial to society to reduce the 
consumption of liquor by reducing the opportunities for buying it; which result 
he would achieve by limiting the right to sell,- to those holding licenses; and 
further, by arbitrarily permitting only a few licenses; and still further by 
putting the license price so high as to freeze out all but a few would-be dealers. 
All this he admits, and all these interferences with personal liberty he not only 
countenances but advocates; but he stops short of the logical conclusion that, 
if the partial prohibition of saloons to decrease drinking is just and right, the 
total prohibition is also just and right and proportionately more effective. 

THE ''PURE LIQUOR" FALLACY. 

He further argues that regulation will restrict the saloons to selling "pure" 
liquor. 

Admit it! Then what? "Pure" liquor does not contain fusel-oil, or 
arsenic, or opium, or tobacco juice; but it does contain alcohol, and it is the 
alcohol in the liquor which does the mischief ! It may take a less quantity 
of molasses swipes than of three star brandy to make a man fighting drunk, 
but in each case it is the alcohol that does the business. It makes no difference 
whether the "drunk" comes from drinking swipes or brandy, it is the alcohol 
in the liquor which turns a man, made in the image of God, into a slobbering 
imbecile or a murderous maniac. 

SWIPES AND BRANDY HARMLESS IF MINUS ALCOHOL. 

Distil the alcohol out of the swipes, and the poor devil who drinks & 
gallon of it will be as harmless as a purring kitten, with nothing worse to 
show for his excess than a bad breath, an evil taste in his mouth and a possible 
stomach ache. 

Abstract the alcohol from the brandy and the devoted club man will 
"walk a crack" on his way home after a "night with the boys," insert the 
latchkey without help, get to bed without calling down domestic lightning 
on his head and go to business on time the next morning, with a head of 
normal size. 

IMPURE LIQUOR A SCAPEGOAT. 

The hue and cry after "impure" liquor, is off on a false scent. 

"Impure" liquor is a scapegoat. 

"Impure" liquor is an "undesirable." It ought to go. It is a proper 
subject to war against; but, after all, it is a comparatively unimportant factor 
in the fight against the drink evil. The real enemy is alcohol. 

A MONGOOSE AS COMPARED TO A BENGAL TIGER. 

The damage to mankind done by "impure" liquor, as compared to "pure" 
alcohol, is as a mongoose catching stray chickens, compared to a Bengal tiger 
turned loose in the barnyard. The mongoose is a sneaking annoyance; but the 



13 

tiger is a beast with claws and teeth, the embodiment of death and destruction, 
which must be killed or caged before there can be safety on the farm. 

"REGULATION" ADVOCATES AND CHARACTER BUILDING. 

The "Regulation and High License" advocates, with great earnestness 
and sincerity, demand the hide of the mongoose, "impure" liquor; but instead 
of putting the tiger, alcohol, out of business, they propose to "stake him out," 
with a rope long enough to reach half the farm; and they justify this course 
by the plea that dodging the tiger will "build up the characters" of the farm 
hands, and educate them into self-reliance. 

THE CLEANLINESS AND ORDER FALLACY. 

THE SECOND "REGULATION AND HIGH LICENSE" FALLACY is, 
that cleanliness, and order, and police supervision, in and over the saloons, 
will remedy the evil. 

Will it ? 

Let us analyze the situation. 

Cleanliness is a good thing. If the problem were "how to clean up the 
city, ' ' scrubbing the floors of the saloons with sapolio, putting a coat of fresh 
paint on the walls and retouching the begrimed portraits of harem beauties 
which adorn the walls, would be an excellent step— one of the proper things 
to do; along with disinfecting Chinatown and cleaning up the gutters, cesspools 
and other pest holes. 

But, as Kipling says, "that's another story." 

STICK TO THE TEXT. 

Let us stick to the text. 

The particular problem which conscientious, sincere men and women are 
now trying to solve, is: "How to reduce the drinking of intoxicating liquor 
to the lowest practicable minimum." 

THE ANTIPROHIBITIONIST REMEDY. 

The antiprohibitionist solution is, first, high license; second, "make the 
saloon clean and orderly." 

The reply to this is that, while dirt and disorder are undesirable conditions, 
they are not what kill in connection with the liquor business ! 

A given quantity of alcoholic liquor, under whatever name, served in a 
cutglass goblet, on a silver salver, by a barkeeper with a rosebud in his button- 
hole, and a pompadour haircut, will make the consumer just as drunk as though 
he drank it out of a grimy tin dipper, served by a barefooted, frowsy-haired 
tough, dressed in overalls and a ragged sweater. 

It is the "alcohol, not the dirt, which kills." 



14 

Prohibiting "impure" liquor does not decrease the opportunity to drink 
"pure" alcohol. Neither does requiring that the "pure" liquor he drunk 
in a clean and orderly place, decrease that opportunity. 

An orderly community is a more desirable place to live in than a riotous 
one; and if we were in danger of mob violence, one of the first and eminently 
proper steps to take would be to maintain order in the saloons, or close them 
entirely. 

But, again, as in the case of cleanliness, order is a most desirable status to 
strive for; but the securing of order is not primarily the problem for which 
we are now seeking a solution. 

ALCOHOL— NOT DIRT AND DISORDER— THE PROBLEM. 

The problem under discussion is "How to reduce drinking intoxicating 
liquor to the lowest practicable minimum." 

Alcohol, not dirt, is the common enemy which we are now seeking to 
circumvent. 

Alcohol, not boisterous conduct, is the thing which steals men's brains away 
and converts a peaceful citizen into a murderous beast. 

A MASTERPIECE OF ILLQGIC. 

The proposition to remedy the evils wrought by alcohol, and solely by 
alcohol, by enacting laws which simply require that the alcohol shall be pure, 
and that it shall be sold in a clean and orderly place, under police supervision; 
but which still permits it to be freely sold to all comers, is so illogical > so 
preposterously inadequate to accomplish the announced intention, that nothing 
but the respectability of some of its advocates, the number of times that it 
has been repeated, and the number of people who want to believe it, keeps it 
from being laughed out of court. 

The proposition is a masterpiece of illogic. 

Here is an analysis of the "Regulation and High License" process of 
reasoning: 

"Intoxicating liquor contains alcohol. Alcohol is a poison. "We therefore 
want to 'reduce the consumption of alcoholic liquor to the lowest practicable 
limit,' so as to minimize the effect of the poison. 

"How shall we do it? 

"Stop permitting the open public sale of it? 

PURIFIED AND REGULATED POISON. 

"Great Heavens, No ! Purify the liquor of every poison but alcohol; 
serve this purified alcohol in a clean glass, in a clean saloon, kept orderly by 
rules and regulations, with a policeman to enforce them. Then put this purified, 
clean and regulated poison on public sale, and we will have accomplished all 
that we can to reduce the consumption of intoxicating liquor to its lowest 
practicable minimum ! ' ' 

How is that for logic ? 



15 

The same general procedure, under the pure food law, results in increasing 
the sale of the scores of articles which secure a government certificate that they 
are pure and clean and put up according to Hoyle ! 

Like causes produce like results. 

If the sale of 99 out of a 100 articles is increased, instead of decreased, by 
official certificate of purity, cleanliness and order, it is logical to conclude that 
the sale of the hundredth article will also be increased; and it is sheer simple- 
mindedness to claim that its consumption will be thereby "decreased to the 
lowest practicable minimum." 

CONUNDRUM FOR THE FEEBLE-MINDED. 

The same logic would reduce the ravages of a man-eating tiger to the 
lowest practicable minimum by bringing him in out of the jungle, picketing 
him out on the village street corner, currying his fur down, washing his paws, 
and setting a policeman to keep tab on his victims. 

Conundrum for feeble-minded folk to solve: 

Would the "regulated and purified" tiger, staked out in the village, catch 
more or less men than if he had been left in the jungle and unceasingly hunted 
by the full village forces ? 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROHIBITION. 

The following are the principal points and arguments against the policy 
of prohibiting the sale of liquor, which have come to my attention. Several 
of the points have been incidentally discussed in previous articles on the liquor 
question; but they are summarized here, for the purpose of getting all of the 
points together, for more comprehensive analysis and consideration: 

FIRST POINT AGAINST PROHIBITION. 

"IT IS WRONG, 'UNMORAL,' TO TRY, BY MAJORITY VOTE, TO 
FORCE PROHIBITION UPON THE MINORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF 
THE TERRITORY, AGAINST THEIR WILL, EVEN IF THE MAJORITY 
ARE IN FAVOR OF PROHIBITION. 

"IF PROHIBITION IS TO BE TRIED AT ALL, IT SHOULD BE VOTED 
ON BY DISTRICTS OR PRECINCTS. LOCAL OPTION, NOT TERRITORIAL 
PROHIBITION, SHOULD BE THE COURSE PURSUED." 

REPLY TO POINT ONE. 

The "rule of the majority" is the fundamental principle of a republican 
form of government. More particularly is it the fundamental principle of the 
United States government, for, in the United States only, of all the republics 
of the world, has the doctrine of "majority rule" become so well established 
that minorities, no matter how strong, no longer think of resisting by force 
the decision of the majority. 

A majority vote in the party primaries selects candidates for election. 



16 

It elects every legislative member of every municipality and state, and of the 
national house of representatives. It elects the President of the United States; 
the Governor of every State and the mayor of every city and village in the 
Union. 

These elected legislative officers in turn enact the laws which control the 
lives, liberties and property of every man, woman and child in the nation — 
minority as well as majority. 

The executive officers, elected by the majority, have the entire charge and 
control of the execution of the laws, with vast discretionary powers, which are 
capable of being most oppressively enforced in favor of, or against, given 
individuals or classes in society. 

From no responsible source has any suggestion been made, however, that 
the principle of "majority rule" should be abandoned because sometimes it 
works hardship or injustice on individuals or minorities. 

On the other hand, although it is manifest that frequently the majority 
are wrong, and the minority right; and further that majority rule is sometimes 
correctly characterized as the "rule of the incompetent," and that it by no 
means produces an ideal government; still, in the long run, it has been found 
to furnish the freest, fairest and least oppressive of any form of government 
which the wit of man has yet conceived. 

Why the opponents of the prohibition of the sale of liquor should have 
been suddenly convinced of the inherent viciousness of the principle of "ma- 
jority rule," as applied to this extremely minor phase of government, when 
no protest is raised against "majority rule" and laws made by the majority 
which vitally affect a vast number of rights, powers and privileges of infinitely 
greater consequence than the right to freely drink alcoholic liquor, is a mystery 
which is left to the antiprohibitionists to elucidate. 

SECOND KEPLY TO POINT ONE. 

A further conundrum in logic is presented by the antiprohibitionists who 
wax righteously indignant over the proposition to permit the majority of the 
voters of the Territory as a whole, to decide what the liquor policy of the 
Territory shall be; but who tacitly, and in some cases enthusiastically, approve 
of the Local Option phase of the question, by acquiescing in or advocating 
the rule of the majority on the respective islands or in the respective districts 
or precincts. 

If it is wrong, "unmoral," and tyrannical for a majority to dictate to a 
minority in the Territory as a whole, why is it not equally so for the majority 
on any island, or in any district or precinct, to likewise impose its will on an 
unwilling minority in the smaller division ? 

Is there any difference in principle between 5001 men out of 10,000, formu- 
lating the laws for the entire 10,000; and 501 out of 1000 dictating the laws 
for the entire 1000, or 51 out of 100 deciding what shall be done by the 
entire 100 ? 



17 

The principle of "majority rule" is identical, whether it is exercised in 
the nation, the state, the municipality, the district, the precinct, or any 
smaller possible political division. 

The logic of the man who froths at the mouth over the "injustice" of 
territorial prohibition, as "being the "tyranny of the majority," hut who wel- 
comes precinct prohibition, as a proper function of government, is on a par 
with the man who proclaims that it is felony to steal a clock, but praiseworthy 
to get away with a watch. 

There is no question but that, in certain cases, as a matter of policy, 
it is preferable to subdivide a state into sections, where there is marked dif- 
ferences of opinion, in conditions and in difficulties of enforcement of the law; 
as, for example, the City of New York as distinguished from the country dis- 
tricts of the State. 

There is no question of right or wrong, justice or tyranny or "unmorality" 
in such division, however. It is a pure question of policy and expediency for 
the best accomplishment of desired results under widely differing conditions. 

THIRD REPLY TO POINT ONE. 

The argument that instead of territorial prohibition we should seek local 
option, is not ingenuous on the part of many who now loudly advocate it. 

At the last session of the Hawaiian legislature, a local option bill was 
introduced in the senate. That legislative body was under the control of the 
interests which are now opposing territorial prohibition, and advocating a local 
option plan as being the fair and proper method of presenting the proposition. 

If local option is a good proposition now, why was it not equally good last 
year, when the legislature could have put it into force and satisfied those who 
are now advocating total prohibition, of their sincerity and good faith ? 

' ' When the devil was sick, the devil a saint would be ; 
When the devil was well, the devil a saint was he." 

What guarantee have we that those who are now smitten with admiration 
for local option will stay smitten when the next legislature meets ? By that 
time is there not a probability, judging from the past, that they may have a 
relapse and discover that it is "unmoral" for a precinct majority to tyrannize 
over the precinct minority ? 

SECOND POINT AGAINST PROHIBITION. 
"PROHIBITION WILL HURT BUSINESS." 
REPLY TO POINT TWO. 

There is no question that prohibition will hurt the liquor business; but will 
it hurt the general business of the community ? 

There is one phase of the liquor business, which, if I personally had had 
the drafting of the joint resolution under which we are to vote, I think I should 



18 

have drawn differently, viz: The clause in the resolution which prohibits the 
manufacture as well as the sale of intoxicating liquor. This provision will put 
out of business the brewery in Honolulu and two or three small wineries in the 
country districts. 

It will be a hardship on the owners of these enterprises to be forced out 
of business; but, as we are not permitted to divide the question submitted 
to us, but must vote upon it as a whole, the greatest good to the greatest} 
number must be our guiding star; and from this standpoint, the damage to the 
few manufacturers of intoxicating liquor in Hawaii sinks into insignificance 
as compared with the advantages accruing to the Territory by reducing the 
consumption of intoxicating liquor to the lowest practicable minimum. 

There is scarce any law passed and put into execution for the general public 
good, that does not injuriously affect some one. This does not and should not, 
however, prevent the enactment of such laws. 

As to these individuals, there is nothing in the joint resolution which will 
prevent the legislature, in its discretion, making them compensation for the 
property taken away from them, although the principle has never been admitted 
in the United States, that dealers in intoxicating liquor have any claim for 
damages upon being legislated out of existence; it having been long ago 
established that dealing in intoxicating liquor is primarily in the nature of a 
nuisance, to be regulated, or legislated out of existence, at the will of the 
people in the exercise of their sovereign police powers, for the protection of 
the community. 

As to the ordinary saloon businesses throughout the Territory, is there any 
logical reason why they should be any more tenderly dealt with now than they 
have been during the past fifty years ? Scores of licenses have been, during 
that period, revoked, or renewals have been refused, without any regard to the 
private interests of the specific saloon keepers, or suggestion of compensation 
being made to them on account of prohibition principles being enforced so far 
as they were individually concerned. 

As to other business, what reason is there for believing that it will be 
injured by diverting the wages and salaries and other income of thousands of 
men, which now goes for a useless luxury, sold by a few, into expenditures for 
food, clothing, furniture, buildings, lands and other necessities and conveniences 
of every day life ? 

There will be a few individuals, now engaged in and about saloons, who 
will be temporarily thrown out of employment; but they will speedily readjust 
themselves to the changed conditions. There are very few of them who would 
not welcome some other line of business. 

Certainly the merchants, the provision dealers, the stock brokers and the 
real estate men should have no complaint coming, concerning a measure which 
will make a couple of hundred thousand dollars or so a month available for 
expenditure or investment in their several lines ! 



19 

Instead of there "being less money under prohibition, there will he more 
money for investment and expenditure in every legitimate line of business 
in Honolulu; and that will benefit, not injure, business. 

In addition to the above reason for improvement of business under pro- 
hibition, there will be more money to spend by the workmen of the city, for 
the reason that, with the diminishing of drunkenness incident to the going 
out of existence of the saloons, there will be fewer days lost from work, and 
consequently the workmen will have more money to spend at the end of each 
month than they now do. 

Moreover, the decrease of drunkenness will heavily decrease the necessity 
for police, jails, and jury trials, which now eat up so large a proportion of 
the taxes, resulting in a decrease of taxation, or an increase in the amount 
of taxes available for schools, hospitals and the construction of needed public 
works. 

THIRD POINT AGAINST PROHIBITION. 
"PROHIBITION WILL DRIVE AWAY TOURISTS." 
REPLY TO POINT THREE. 

Prohibition will drive away tourists, if tourists come for the purpose of 
getting liquor, or if that is one of their main objects in coming to Hawaii. 

We have an active, wide-awake promotion committee, eager to attract 
tourists by presenting to them all the objects and subjects which Hawaii con- 
tains, which they think the tourist will be interested in. 

What do the promotion committee advertise ? 

Do they announce in display type, that Hawaii has first-class barrooms; or 
that it produces beer "brewed to suit the climate"; or that "dago red" can 
be bought so cheaply that three drinks can be secured for a quarter; or that 
such pungent swipes are distilled that one swallow will do the business, even 
though one swallow does not make a summer ? 

Do they even make a reference to the subject, in small type, on the back 
page, as being one of the minor attractions of the Territory ? If not, why not ? 

Surely, if the absence of liquor is going to drive tourists away, the fact 
that it is obtainable here in all its forms, from pure alcohol to the most 
fantastic combination of fusel-oil and tobacco juice; from champagne to swipes, 
to suit all palates and tastes, should at least be mentioned in a modest way ! 

The fact is that prohibition will not drive away tourists. 

The average tourist is not a drinking man, at least to the extent that he 
has such an itching gullet for whisky that he will stay away from Hawaii if 
saloons are not permitted here. 

Look on the tables of the ocean steamers running between San Francisco 
and Honolulu, and you will find scarce a bottle of liquor at either breakfast, 
lunch or dinner. 



20 

Look on the tables of the Young Hotel, the Moana or the Union Grill and 
only occasionally will wine or liquor be seen. 

The fact is that the great majority of American tourists, and it is the: 
American tourists that chiefly come to Hawaii, do not habitually use liquor. 
They drink at entertainments, largely because it is the custom so to do and 
because it is set before them. 

Aside from a few chronics who drink cocktails before breakfast; who would 
not go to heaven unless assured that there was a bar there, tourists do not 
come to Hawaii to get a drink, and the vast majority of them will continue to 
come to Hawaii just the same, if champagne and cocktails are no longer avail- 
able, as they now do when such luxuries are available but seldom used. 

Tourists are attracted to Hawaii because of the incomparable climate; the 
magnificent mountains; the vast volcano; the fine roads; the picturesque surf 
riding; the swimming at Waikiki; the invigorating auto trips around the several 
islands. For rest and the indescribable charm of the moonlight at Haleiwa; the 
rainbows of Manoa and the tropic forests of the volcano road ! 

That such is the case is demonstrated that these are the features which 
the promotion committee emphasizes in its literature and which newspaper and 
magazine writers enthuse over in their home correspondence. 

"Out of the heart the mouth speaketh," is gospel truth. 

If the lure of Primo, or the delicate aroma of Buchly's compounds were 
what attracted tourists to Hawaii, would we not have heard at least one peep 
from at least one imbibing admirer ? 

Prohibition does not drive away tourists. 

The greatest tourist resort in the United States is Southern California. 
Tourists travel there from all over the Union and all over the world by the 
hundreds of thousands, every year. 

Southern California has grown rich and is rapidly growing richer out of 
the tourist business, with an enormous percentage of tourists who settle down 
and become permanent residents. 

In the face of the undeniable facts there is the equally undeniable fact 
that, outside of Los Angeles, almost every municipality and county in Southern 
California prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

A law which does not drive tourists away from Southern California will 
not drive them away from Hawaii. 

So far from prohibition being a bar to tourists in Southern California, it 
is one of the chief drawing cards which is advertised and made a feature of 
in inducing tourists to cease their wanderings and become permanent residents. 

No man likes a saloon in the immediate vicinity of his home, and this 
sentiment applies to tourists who may become settlers, as well as to those who 
have already settled down. 

The series of bloody murders, directly traceable to drink, which have 
recently disgraced the fair fame of Hawaii, are far more likely to drive away 
tourists than will be the reputation that we have a peaceful, sober, law-abiding 



21 

population, undisturbed and unterrorized by men with guns, made irresponsible 
by drink. 

Prohibition will not drive away tourists; it will draw tourists. Hawaii is 
destined to become one of the great and famous tourist resorts of the world, 
even if the sale of liquor is not prohibited here. It will be an equally great 
tourist resort, and what is more important, a great tourist residence community, 
if alcoholic drinking is "reduced to the lowest practicable minimum." 

FOURTH POINT AGAINST PROHIBITION. 

A FIRST-CLASS HOTEL CANNOT EXIST IN HAWAII, WITHOUT THE 
RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR. 

REPLY TO FOURTH POINT. 

To the statement that a first-class hotel cannot be operated in Hawaii, 
without a bar attached, the reply is that no one can know whether this is correct 
until it is tried. 

Certainly, first-class hotels, and plenty of them, exist in Southern California, 
in Texas and in Kansas, where prohibition laws are in effect; and the well 
nigh unanimous testimony from those sections where prohibition is enforced 
the strictest is, that the prosperity of those several communities was never 
so great as it has been under prohibition, and general prosperity does not single 
out the hotels and dodge them. 

The same kind of American citizens that patronize first-class hotels in 
the States and communities named, patronize and will continue to patronize 
the first-class hotels in Hawaii. 

The assertion that a first-class hotel cannot exist without a snake-bite- 
antidote attachment, might be taken as a matter of course in Arizona, the 
land of the tarantula, the hair trigger and the whisky straight; although Texas, 
her next door neighbor, who recently successfully competed for priority in the 
foregoing festive accomplishments, has successfully bottled up the demon rum, 
and is still able to furnish all comers with three square meals a day. 

But to solemnly declaim as the final word — a declaration of law and gospel 
— that a purveyor of good food can not make both ends meet unless he can 
also furnish booze on the side, is on a par with a claim that a dry goods mer- 
chant can not sell a silk dress unless he can throw in a pair of boots on the side. 

Are people going to stop eating because booze is banished ? 

Are they going to crave tender cuts and broiled frogs' legs any the less 
because the passageway between the Union Grill and Cunha's art gallery is 
walled up ? 

Are not the chances that forced economy at the liquid end of the bill of 
fare, will provide more money with which to tickle the palate with more sub- 
stantial luxuries ? 



22 

In view of the many and substantial benefits to be derived from curbing 
the "rum devil," and his omnivorous appetite for human life, is it not worth 
taking a chance that the hotels will survive, even though some of the "chicken- 
fixins" have to be marked off the bill of fare, and the patrons reduced to the 
extremity of living on plainer fare, which will still be more elaborate than 99 
per cent of us get at home, and thrive on ? 

POINT FIVE AGAINST PROHIBITION. 

THIS IS A SEAPORT. SAILORS WANT LIQUOR AND THEIR DE- 
SIRES MUST BE CATERED TO. 

REPLY TO POINT FIVE. 

By what process of reasoning are sailors, as a class, to be treated differently 
with respect to liquor drinking, from soldiers, cowboys and plantation laborers ? 

As the fact that "Honolulu is a seaport" is regularly trotted out and put 
through its paces, every time the liquor question is up for discussion, its ex- 
ponents must have some theory upon which they base the claim that sailors 
should be singled out from the mass of citizens, and blessed, or cursed, according 
to the viewpoint, with the opportunity to buy intoxicating liquor on different 
terms from their fellow citizens. 

Has any one ever heard any reason advanced in support of the assertion ? 

What reason can there be ? 

Is it because a sailor is so used to his daily grog, that he simply MUST 
have it, or go off with the jimjams ? 

That might once have been an explanation, if not a reason, in the days 
when not only merchant ships but naval vessels also, served rum to the crew 
as a part of the daily ration; but that practice no longer obtains. 

As a matter of fact, prohibition of the saloon has already gone into effect 
on shipboard, so far as the sailors are concerned. Daily grog has been cut out 
of the sea ration. 

The decks may be wet, but the liquor glasses in the fo'csl are "dry," 
from one end of a voyage to the other. 

The intimation incident to the theory that seaports must sell liquor, is, that 
if the saloons were closed, sailors would boycott the town. 

Would they ? If that is the theory, why would they boycott the town 
without saloons any more than they boycott the ship which has no liquor 
supply ? 

The fact that sailors do not boycott ships where liquor is not on sale, 
in which ships they are confined for months at a time, demonstrates that they 
will not boycott towns which do not license saloons, in which towns they inci- 
dentally stay for a few hours or days, in the course of a voyage. 

The fact of the matter is, that the assertion that sailors and seaports must 
bo treated differently from inland towns, when it comes to liquor regulation, 
is one of the ancient, worn out, stale, flat, unprofitable and untrue sayings 



23 

which has been repeated so often that mere repetition has given it a semblance 
of truth. All that is needed to demonstrate its untruth is to analyze it. 

For thousands of years the assertion was made that the sun revolved 
around the earth, and the assertion was received as fundamental truth, until 
Galileo challenged it. To be sure he had to recant under threat of torture; 
but the old theory was destroyed, only to be revived by a South Carolina darky 
preacher, who, a few years ago gained national fame, and added to the joys 
of life, by a sermon entitled "De Sun Do Move." 

The theory that a sailor is a natural born tough, with an insatiable thirst 
for straight liquor, and that he will "yump his yob" if deprived of whisky, is 
as obsolete as the theory that "de sun do move." 

Sailors do not come to Honolulu to buy liquor. They come because the 
ships on which they are employed have business here. They will continue to 
sail on prohibition ships; and ships will continue to come to Hawaii as long as 
freight and passengers are available at paying rates, regardles of our liquor laws. 

Instead of liquor selling being permitted BECAUSE Honolulu is a seaport 
town, if any difference is to be made by reason of its being a fact, it should 
rather be that temptation to drink should be removed, by decreasing the oppor- 
tunities to drink. 

Is there any one who will deny that it would be better for seamen them- 
selves, as well as for the rest of the community, if drinking could be reduced 
among seamen to the "lowest practicable minimum"? 

Many seamen drink, not because they want to do so, but because it is 
the custom and because such pressure is brought upon them to drink that ib 
is practically impossible for them to resist. 

Many sailors would welcome the change; and certainly a sober waterfront 
would be a welcome change to shipowners and captains, as well as to those 
having business in that quarter. 

The plea that liquor must continue to be sold in Honolulu because it is a 
seaport, is the plea of the unthinking repeater of platitudes; or of the man 
who fears that sailors would drink less liquor in a saloonless Honolulu than in 
a town which publicly invites Jack to drink, usually to his detriment— too 
often to his destruction. 

SIXTH OBJECTION TO PROHIBITION. 
"PEOHIBITION WILL NOT PROHIBIT"; (Meaning thereby that prohi- 
bition will not prevent the use of liquor.) "MORE LIQUOR WILL BE SOLD 
UNDER PROHIBITION THAN UNDER A LICENSE LAW." 

This is another of the stock phrases that is babbled off without thought, 
by those who, for whatever reason, object to prohibition of the sale of liquor. 

TWO CLASSES WHO OPPOSE PROHIBITION. 

There are two classes who oppose prohibition. 

First, those who are making a profit out of the business, directly or in- 
directly; 



24 

Second, certain honest but narrow-minded persons who have a maximum 
conception of their "rights," and a minimum conception of their obligations 
and responsibilities toward their fellowmen. 

REPLY TO FIRST CLASS. 

The reply to this objection differs with the class which makes it. 

The reply to the liquor dealer, who wails that the proposed law will in- 
crease liquor sales and consumption, is, " 'It is to laugh!' " 

"Since when did you become so tender conscienced that it gives you pain 
to think that more liquor will be consumed, thereby increasing the profits of 
the liquor dealers? 

"Boys and young men now drink the liquor which you sell, and wreck 
their young manhood thereby. 

"You know it; but you keep on selling to them just the same. You do 
not try to reduce the amount you sell to them. On the contrary you try to 
increase it. 

"The more you sell the more you profit! 

"The more you sell the better you like it! 

"Why are you now suddenly smitten with the fear that a law may go 
into effect which will increase the liquor dealers profit?" 

A WOLF AND THE SHEEP. 

The best parallel that I can think of is a flock of sheep which has been 
stricken with an epidemic of scab. It is proposed to "dip" them in a medicated 
bath, in order to stop the scab. Suddenly a wolf, who has been fattening on 
the dead and dying sheep, breaks out of the forest and sets up a howl against 
dipping, on the ground that it will not cure scab; on the contrary it will 
aggravate it. 

A LYING HYPOCRITE. 

Would not the proper answer to the wolf be: "You infernal lying 
hypocrite! The sheep are already dying, and you are growing fat on their 
misery and death. You are not interested in saving sheep. Your interest lies 
in having more sheep die!" 

To apply the parallel— the liquor dealer is not interested in REDUCING 
the number of liquor drinkers, and REDUCING the amount of liquor consumed. 
His interests are bound up with INCREASING the number of drinkers and the 
amount of liquor consumed. 

When, therefore, you hear a liquor dealer waxing eloquent over the argu- 
ment that prohibition ought to be defeated, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PRO- 
HIBIT, BUT WILL INCREASE THE CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR, just tag 
him as a wolf whose heart is bowed down with sorrow, because he is afraid! 
that dipping may kill the sheep. 



25 

REPLY TO SECOND CLASS. 

The reply to the second class — the narrow men who quote scripture to 
justify drinking; who would rather see Hawaii "free than soher"; who value 
their own "liberty" to do as they please, more than they do the soul of their 
neighbor who may be damned to hell by reason of that "liberty" — the reply 
to this class of men, who frequently are sincere, is different. 

STICK TO THE TEXT. 

To them I say "stick to the text." 

The object of a law prohibiting the sale of liquor, is NOT TO STOP liquor 
selling or liquor consumption. No one expects it!— not even the most ardent 
prohibition fanatic who ever walked! 

To the end of time, there will probably be some men who will crave alcoholic 
liquor, and there will be other men, who, for the purpose of making a dollar's 
profit, will furnish it, law or no law! 

The object of a law prohibiting the sale of liquor is not to STOP drinking 
altogether; but to try and "REDUCE THE CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR TO 
THE LEAST PRACTICABLE MINIMUM." 

This phase of the question has been argued in detail in an earlier article 
of this series; but it is just as well to restate it here, in connection with the 
objection that "prohibition does not prohibit." 

PROHIBITION DOES NOT PROHIBIT, BUT IT LESSENS. 

Prohibition does not prohibit, but it lessens, the consumption of liquor, 
precisely as a law against murder, theft, assault and all the other crimes, does 
not stop the commission of those crimes; but it DOES tend to lessen their 
frequency. 

Because prohibition of the sale of liquor does not wholly stop such sale, 
Mr. Hypocritical Wolf and Mr. Narrow Sincerity set up the cry — "Prohibition 
does not Prohibit! Repeal the law!" 

As well advocate the repeal of all laws against crime, because they fail to 
prevent all crime! 

To Mr. Narrow Sincerity, I say that it stands to reason that more liquor 
will be sold and consumed, where it is sold lawfully and openly, within sight 
and smell of the sidewalk, on the principal streets, in the pathway of thousands, 
whose wills are weak or powerless to resist, than will be the case of it is 
outlawed— driven out of sight, into back alleys, cellars and concealed cubbyholes 
behind barred trapdoors. 

"SNEAKS AND LIARS." 

Bishop Restarick fears that a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating 
liquor will "make sneaks and liars" out of some previously reputable and 



26 

upright citizens. I suggest to the good Bishop that some men may act the 
"sneak" and "lie" to obtain a drink of whisky when there is a prohibition 
law in force; but the prohibition law is not what will make them "liars and 
sneaks"; it will simply smoke the "sneaks and liars" out, and show them up 
in their true colors. 

Any man (except one who is so addicted to drink that he is no longer a 
free agent, but the victim of a disease) who will perjure himself and act the 
sneak for the simple purpose of getting a drink, only lacks the opportunity to 
do the sneak-and-liar act in any other directions where his appetite or his desires 
may lead. 

FOXES AND PILLARS OF THE CHURCH. 

A dog which sneaks a chicken out of the backyard will sneak a ham out of 
the kitchen or a turkey off the dinner table if it gets the chance. 

"Sneaks and Liars" and confirmed drunks, as well as some of the pillars 
of the church and society, will patronize "speak easies" and "holes in the 
wall, ' ' as well as more questionable resorts, but there are many, and yet many, 
men who will not do so, who would be tempted to their destruction by the open 
saloon; many who will not drink, or will drink less, if there is no available 
public place with its air of sociability extending an invitation to the passerby. 

Remember the text! 

PROHIBITION WILL NOT PROHIBIT, BUT IT WILL LESSEN THE 
AMOUNT OF LIQUOR SOLD, and thereby tend to secure the desired object, 
viz: It will tend "to reduce the consumption of liquor to the lowest practicable 
minimum. ' ' 

SEVENTH OBJECTION TO PROHIBITION. 

IT IS UNFAIR LEGISLATION, BECAUSE IT PREVENTS THE POOR 
MAN FROM GETTING LIQUOR, WHILE PERMITTING THE RICH MAN 
TO IMPORT ALL HE WANTS. 

A FAKE OBJECTION. 

The answer to this objection, so far as most who make it are concerned, is, 
that it is a fake objection, having no truth, logic or sincerity in it. 

It is on a par with the argument that we ought to defeat prohibition because 
Mr. Woolley wants it. Both of these arguments, by the way, are being fed out 
to the native people, by the Liquor Dealers' Association, through the medium of 
a special weekly edition of the Bulletin, in Hawaiian, and an alleged story paper 
being published in the name of John Wise, who has been hired to spread the 
doctrine that drinking liquor is good for Hawaiians, and who is industriously 
earning his salary. 

The two arguments named are being used more than any and all others. They 
indicate the high character of those who are opposing prohibition ' ' on principle. ' ' 



27 

TO THE FEW SINCERE DOUBTERS. 

As to the few who have some feeling that "discrimination" is involved, 
the reply is that there is no more discrimination in this respect than there is in 
hundreds of other cases, both through legislation and through natural causes or 
the force of circumstances. 

A multimillionaire can do many things and go scot free, that would, if done 
t>y most of the rest of us, land us in jail. Is that any reason for repealing, ol 
failing to enact just laws that by their terms apply equally to all men? 

John Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company have done many things 
which have entailed fine and imprisonment upon many poorer men and smaller 
concerns. Is that any reason for repealing the criminal laws and the laws 
against granting railroad rebates and the laws against trusts? 

STEAM YACHTS AND AUTOMOBILES. 

A rich man can buy a steam yacht or an automobile, while a poor man can 
not, because he has not money enough. 

A rich man can own a piano, but a poor man has to be contented to whistle 
a tune with his own mouth, or listen to Berger's band. 

GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE TAXES. 

It is not because of the law that this is so, but simply because some men 
have more money than others. It always has been so and always will be so, 
until somebody can think up soma kind of a law which will make us all rich. 

I refer the objectors under this point, to the candidate for the legislature 
who promised the voters that if they would elect him, he would have a law 
passed repealing all tax laws, and requiring the government to pay the taxes. 

IMPORTING WILL BE ONLY TOO EASY. 

As a matter of fact, as we shall learn to our sorrow, if prohibition goes into 
effect, any man with a dollar can "import" all the liquor he will pay for, at 
but little more cost than he now gets it. The liquor dealers and the express 
companies will speedily work out the details. 

As a further matter of fact, this same "right to import" is today the 
greatest obstacle to the successful enforcement of prohibition, throughout the 
United States, in the States, counties and towns, which hav? passed laws pro- 
hibiting the sale of liquor. 

The liquor dealers and the express companies and other high-minded citi- 
zens, who "on principle" believe in personal "liberty" and the inalienable 
right to get drunk, will combine as they do elsewhere in the Union, to defeat 
and nullify the prohibition law by every possible device and subterfuge. 



28 
PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION. 

One of the vital questions before the country and before congress, today, is 
the securing of the passage by congress of a law which will file the teeth and 
clip the claws of these high-minded gentry, and make it a federal offense to 
ship alcoholic liquor from any State into any other State where, under local 
law, prohibition is in force. 

PROBABLE HYSTERICS OF "LIBERTY" LOVERS. 

The bare suggestion of such a frightful contingency, will probably give our 
"liberty" loving friends the hysterics, as being an infringement of our terri- 
torial rights. 

Let them calm themselves with the reflection that "Puritan Maine" has 
joined hands with "Fir^-eating South Carolina," "Hair-Trigger Texas," "Bleed- 
ing Kansas" and the frozen Dakotas, together with "good Americans and true" 
from every other State in the Union to secure the passage by congress of this 
very law, and what is more, there is every indication that the law will be en- 
acted at an early date. 

What does not worry the people of these liberty-loving States, as an "inva- 
sion of State rights," need not alarm the newly-created Americans of Hawaii. 

Another thought is, that it would be a good thing for the Territory if it 
were a fact that only the rich could secure liquor by importing it. Unfortunately 
nearly every one who chooses to go to the trouble can get it. 

RIGHT OF IMPORTATION AN OBSTACLE TO BE OVERCOME. 

Instead of this being a reason for abandoning the prohibition proposition 
however, it is simply one of the many obstacles to be overcome. 

So long as we believe that the object sought is sound and right, viz.: the 
"reduction of the consumption of liquor to the lowest practicable minimum," 
we must not be frightened off by obstacles. 

Nothing worth having is obtained without effort. 

LIBERTY BEFORE SOBRIETY. 

The "liberty before sobriety" advocates will probably say: "What do you 
want prohibition for, if anybody can import liquor at about the same price 
now paid?" 

To them I again quote the text which is the warp, the woof and the whole 
fabric of the prohibition argument: 

"Prohibition will not Prohibit, but it will lessen the consumption of liquor." 

WHAT ABOLITION OF THE SALOON WILL ACCOMPLISH. 

Abolition of the saloon will not prevent those who wish to obtain liquor, 
from making their own swipes, patronizing blind pigs or importing it from Cali- 



29 

fornia; but it will do away with the ever present, public invitation to drink, 
which a saloon presents in such a seductive manner as to be irresistible to hun- 
dreds of men, who fall, and who, but for the presence of the saloon, would not 
succumb, and would not deliberately, and of malice aforethought, go to the 
trouble of importing liquor, or incur the bother and risk of hunting out and 
patronizing a blind pig. 

In other words, in spite of the power of importation which will still remain 
to every inhabitant of Hawaii, poor as well as rich, the abolition of the open, 
public, legalized saloon will tend to reduce drinking to the "lowest practicable 
minimum, ' ' and that is what we are seeking. 

N 

IMPORTATION NOT THE PRESENT ISSUE. 

And yet this one more reply: 

Hawaii has not the power to prevent the importation of liquor. Congress 
alone can do that for either Maine, Texas, South Carolina or any other State 
or Territory; but HAWAII CAN, BY THE GRACE OF CONGRESS, HERE 
AND NOW, DECIDE WHETHER SHE WILL PERMIT THE PUBLIC SALOON 
TO EXIST WITHIN HER BORDERS! 

THIS, AND THIS ALONE, IS THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US FOR 
DECISION. 

One step at a time. 

We can not expect to do everything at once. 

A man can not run a mile in three jumps. 

Recognizing that the power of importation is something to be fought, in the 
future, but now beyond our reach, what we can now do, is to decisively order 
the saloon off the map of Hawaii. Then, having done all within our power, we 
can turn our attention to the next point, and, together with the other prohibi- 
tion States and Territories, camp on the trail of congress, until we secure from 
it the next step in securing the "reduction of the consumption of liquor to 
the lowest practicable minimum," viz.: the prohibition by congress, of the im- 
portation of alcoholic liquor, from any State or Territory, into any other State 
or Territory which prohibits the sale of alcoholic liquor within its borders 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 279 722 



III 



